Jenkins Chapter 3

Is Jenkins suggesting that transmedia storytelling will soon be the most dominant form of expression surrounding blockbuster movies? Will we need to buy into games and comics in addition to the movie for us to get full enjoyment out of the movie? He is telling us that many producers are sitting back and watching others do it first to see what type of system they are using before they themselves try it out, but once they figure it out, will this type of storytelling take over?

Jenkins gives a list of 11 questions that a fan stated could be the answer to what The Matrix is about. Personally, I am not a fan of movies that leave me feeling questionable or feeling as I have not properly understood the movie at the end. Although the old Hollywood style of movie production may get a bit repetitive, I believe that SOME redundancy and background information is necessary for a movie to be understood, especially for sequels or spin-offs that a first timer might be viewing.

Jenkins chapter 3

So os this idea of transmedia storytelling supposed to appeal to multiple audiences in the same media topic, or is it a technique that one agency or company appeals to multiple audiences, but not in the same text?

Jenkins says that during the creation of the Matrix Reloaded all of the related properties such as video games, action figures, comic book, and an animated series assist in explaining the storyline of the trilogy. However i feel that the movies themselves should convey the entire message. Viewers shouldnt have to go out and purchase more accessories to completely understand the underlying themes in the films. These high budget films should do that themselves.

Jenkins Chapter 3

I thought it was interesting when Jenkins said that "the old Hollywood system depended on redundancy to ensure that viewers could follow the plot at all times, while the new Hollywood system demands that we keep our eyes on the road at all times, and that we do research before we arrive at the theater." This seems to be good news for society. Maybe it means we aren't getting closer to a world like the movie "Idiocracy," where everyone is dumbed-down.

Is Jenkins saying that this multiple media convergence is the best way to create films? He says, "for the casual consumer, The Matrix asked too much. For the hard-core fan, it provided too little." Is there a film franchise that did it correctly in the middle?

Chapter 3

While reading about The Matrix and how it involved its audience, it seemed very similar to the way Lost(my topic) did the same thing. It made the audience get involved to try and figure out the story line. I thought it was interesting and made some good points for my paper such as the idea of collective intelligence.

I was intrigued by the idea of the 'cult movie'. It is "a disconnected series of images, of peaks, of visual icebergs" while at the same time have many different central ideas that allows a wide variety of people to latch on to. This is also the same with Lost, there were many story lines, the hatch, love, bad guys, death, friendship, mysterious numbers, etc that allowed a wide audience to become attached.

Jenkins Chapter 3

1. In Chapter 3, Jenkins goes into great detail trying to make sense of The Matrix and understand what the film was actually about. It seems like many people interpreted the story differently than others. Do you think a movie has to have a defined meaning or message to be successful or can a movie still be a blockbuster despite having a clear or easy to understand point behind it?

2. Jenkins used Pokemon as an example of collective intelligence with children and how it is different than that of adults. Jenkins says that adults rely on others for information while children are hunters and gatherers. So in Pokemon the kids go out of their way to receive character statistics and traits from other Pokemon players when they play the game together. With kids being more in tune with the internet and cell phones, do you think getting "involved" with games will become a thing of the past?

Jenkins Chapter 3

Does Jenkins suggest that a vertical or a horizontally integrated entertainment industry is more productive ?

Why is this type more conducive to success ?

How does this relate to the concept of "transmedia storytelling" ?

Jenkins Chapter 3 for 10/26/10

1. What characteristics go into good world-making? It seems like most of the good examples from the chapter come from action/violent movies.

2. I find it really interesting that video games can changes a viewers "additive comprehension" of a movie by entering the "world" as a different character that they never really thought about during the movie. What are some ways one can watch a movie (without playing video games) that will result in additive comprehension?

Jenkins Chapter 2

I believe that tapping into the emotions of the consumer is a great way to build brand loyalty. I remember seeing an advertisement for Google during the 2010 Superbowl that showed how a guy used the website to study abroad, fall in love, get married and have a child. I thought it was a great, cutesy commercial that made me feel emotion, and although I already use Google, it’s something that stuck with me. Which elements of emotion make a commercial/brand stick with a person most? For example, which is going to be more memorable in a few years: the trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 or the “save the animals” campaign with Sarah McLaughlin singing in the background?

I find it interesting that there are certain public figures and groups that can offset the process of an expected result such as in the cases of Howard Stern's comic sidekick winning a spot over Leo DiCaprio in People Magazine's most beautiful people in the world and Clay Aiken's album selling 200,000 more copies than the first place winner of American Idol. If the voting system is so faulty, why do so many people still hold the final rating so dear to heart?

Jenkins Chapter 2

Jenkins describes the importance of reality television in the context of such programming saving broadcast networks as they "try to resist cable television's attempts to siphon away their core audience."

What "attempts" by the cable networks do you think he is describing?

How does reality television counteract this?

Do you think "affective economics," as Jenkins describes it a viable market strategy for media makers?

Jenkins Chapter 2

It's interesting to see the impact that media, particularly television, has had on society, but as pointed out in the reading it's even more interesting to see the impact society can have on television. Television programming revolves around consumer desires, which inevitably impact the success and/or failure of new media as well. This impact having changed advertisers and networks' outlooks has both positive and negative aspects. Though I do find it important that consumers have a voice in media culture, it's sad to see that networks are so quick to please. This results in the skewing of the true identity of a program, simply to increase or maintain ratings.

The idea that movies or music or television "are no longer just intellectual property" but rather "emotional capital" is disturbing. Exploitation has become so acceptable in media that it's hard to imagine media now without it. Product placement is an example of a very common tactic used in media today. Do you think if media didn't utilize this tactic it could change the overall themes, interpretations, or other aspects of a television program or movie? From the clothes a character wears to the types of refreshments they drink or cars they drive, product placement has a great impact on a movie. Lambourghini deciding to pay to have a character in a film driving their car as opposed to the beater Oldsmobile that was written in the script can change a lot about the plot. Scripts could even be alterred based on a company paying a ridiculously large sum to place their product. Though I am not completely opposed to product placement, I believe it has and will continue to go too far.

Jenkins Ch. 2

In the case of American Idol, how does texting a vote lead to being a brand loyal? Couldn't it just be that people want to have an interactive role in television watching and have nothing to do with the advertisers or products?

Haven't advertisers taken the concept of "brand communities" too far? Like when the videos of young girls showing off goods on youtube or celebrities tweeting about products they are sent for free, don't people realize that there is incentive for them to say those things and why trust their opinion anyways?

Jenkins Chapter 2

1. The section of the article that focused on The Apprentice was pretty interesting. Nothing really surprised me; I've seen season one and am pretty familiar with how much emphasis there is on product placement and endorsing brands. I watched the season within the last year online after we watched one episode in a class that I have. But being in the advertising/pr program at UWM, I was able to watch and enjoy the show on a different level than the average audience. I was watching it to see how principles taught were being applied in a "real" setting. So the idea of product integration doesn't frustrate me on the show. As dorky as it may sound, it actually excites me. Maybe it is because I'd like to be in advertising one of these days, so it gives me motivation and ideas.

2. Speaking more generally, they have been selling to us via reality tv for a long time. It is a little more obvious in recent years, but it definitely isn't anything new. Looking back as early as the first few seasons of The Real World, there was product placement. Mainly in the companies that they "worked" for. But even shows like Survivor, a show that you would think would be free of products/brands, still incorporates sponsors and product integration by winning challenges. I just see it as a means to pay the bills and I don't think it is really that big of a problem.

Chapter 2

I liked the idea of convergence strategy. Today we see it all the time, facebook has ads aimed at the user that they can like or dislike, product placement is becoming ridiculous, pop ups on I-pods,and the list goes on. It makes me think about what advertising will be like in twenty years.

The section on the show The Apprentice was also very interesting. The idea that by the end of an episode, the viewer is actually rooting for the brand to do well says a lot about product placement and integration. All in all, that show is one big product demonstration that, when reading all about it, makes me want to watch it less than I did before.

Jenkins Chapter 2 for 10/21/10

1. I was interested with the "impress me" concept in this chapter. If I ever have free time and I am flipping through channels, I will often stop on a channel if I see something that catches my attention right away. What do you think are the main factors when it comes to catching the attention of a typical consumer?

2. When it comes to zappers, casuals and loyals, I thought of an interesting concept. When it comes to sporting events, I am a loyal. I cannot miss my teams play and I will watch every second of every game. When it comes to normal television shows, I am a casual. If I'm not doing anything I will try to catch "The Office" or "Entourage" and I will typically watch an entire episode or two. With that being said, do you think it's possible to fall in more than one category as far as TV viewers go?

Jenkins Intro

In one segment, Jenkins states that we may be forced to deal with having so many functions added to an appliance that it will decrease the ability for that appliance to “serve its own function.” Do you think that text messaging, Internet access, and games have really decreased a cell phones ability to make calls, or does he mean that it has just made it more difficult to figure out how to make a phone call with the variety of functions available? Also, what are some other technologies that have evolved in this way besides the cell phone and computers?

I agree that there will be no single black box that directs media flow to one house...at least not in the near future. As the book says, convergence isn't about ending the process, it's about the continuing process of media evolution and keeping up a certain level of competition. New concepts of media are constantly coming about. If every time a new idea was introduced, would a new black box come out? Would there be a central control station for all black boxes that you could add information to? How do other people feel about the topic?

Jenkins Introduction

Digital revolutionary George Gilder made a pretty strong assertion regarding the introduction of the computer. He said that in the same sense as the automobile converging with the horse, the computer did not come to transform mass culture, but rather destroy it? Do you agree? Has the computer had as great an impact on mass culture as the automobile?

The excerpt on science fiction writer Bruce Sterling explained that he established what was known as the "Dead Media Project." Is it agreeable that old media never die, but simply the delivery technologies do? Can you think of any examples to which this would not hold true?

Jenkins chapter 1

The book highlights collective intelligence: being Cognition, Cooperation, and coordination. Must collective intelligence maintain these 3 thresholds in order to function? The cognition: the need for judgments; do this mean that there always has to be someone questions, and reevaluation so that all angles are always covered?

With participatory culture...does this mean that everyone has a part in the creation of our consumer products? The same people that are buying the products are also the ones making them, packaging them, testing them, marketing them, selling them. It seems to me like a revolving cycle of CONSUMERISM!

Jenkins Intro

If convergence is all about working together to survive, does this mean that competition and convergence can't exist at the same time?

"Convergence refers to a process, not an endpoint."

If this statement is true, how will we ever know if the our media system is evolving if there is no endpoint in sight? Are we stuck in a never-ending cycle of small modifications that will never lead to one streamlined technology that allows us to access all media?

Jenkins

Jenkins mentions Nicholas Negropontes' 1990's assertion/prediction that "the monolithic empires of mass media are dissolving into an array of cottage industries."

- What specific industry transformations do you think he meant by this?

- Has it been realized?

He describes a realization that consumers don't just accept convergence, but actually actively drive the process.

- In what ways do consumers do this?

- What about corporations?

- Expand on what Jenkins means when he describes game consoles as the, "Trojan Horse that smuggled convergence culture right into people's living rooms."

Jenkins Introduction for 10/19/10

I studied the "Bert is Evil" thing for an Internet Culture class here last year and I am left with the same question. Can the media really portray anything how it wants? I find this especially true with things such as the NFL Draft. If ESPN decides a player in college football is good, it will hype him up for months leading up to the NFL Draft. After those months of hype, it is almost a guarantee that the player will be drafted with one of the top 10 picks.

2. I found the concept of "delievery technologies" to be very interesting. When I was younger I thought there was no way things such as CD's would be replaced. Now you can get music from almost everywhere including your phone. What do you think will be the newest forms of technology, making the current forms of technology "delivery technologies"?

Seiter Toys R Us

1. In my strategic communications campaigns course that I am taking this semester, we read a book called "Brand Sense: Sensory Secrets Behind The Stuff We Buy". The book basically says that in order for companies to grow they need to appeal to more senses than sight and sound. In one section, they talked about how Toys R Us uses artificial scents that replicate the smell of Play-Doh and it is released it certain aisles of the store. Do you think this is an attempt to raise Play-Doh sales directly or do you think this just reminds parents of the smell they remember as a kid and pushes them to buy other toys?

2. I thought it was interesting how toy companies sell separately each character, monster, villain, etc. from a particular series. While that doesn't surprise me, I think it makes a lot of sense. But do you think shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for example, intentionally create new characters as often as possible because they know they can turn that person into a toy as well? In other words changing the storyline of a program in an effort to make the company commercially successful.

Sold Separately: Children and Parents in Consumer Culture

I find the idea of "deseasonalization" mentioned in the article fascinating. Years ago toys were viewed as prized possessions, received only on major holidays and/or birthdays. Today, as stated throughout the article, children are advertised in ways that convince them of a certain need to have these toys. The concept of receiving toys during holidays and birthdays seems to have been forgotten and replaced with this "desire to have everythingright now." I think this mentality holds true across the board, meaning adults share it as well. Isn't that what credit cards are for? A large part of society, those receptive to the idea of living on credit, acts in a manner similar to the children described in the Toys R Us stores. To this end, I think the fault doesn't lay upon the advertisers, but rather the "do as I say and not as I do" parental representations these kids follow.

The location of Toys R Us stores is also interesting. Having recently stopped to inquire at a local mall as to where I could purchase toys, I now fully understand the concept. A lot of my purchasing done in a mall setting is done with the idea in mind that I will subsequently have to carry my purchases for the entirety of the trip. I would be interested in knowing what the difference in purchasing amounts would be if ever Toys R Us would relocate to a mall. Separating it from the mall, as with any other individual stores outside of a mall setting, provides a different level of status to consumers as well.

Seiter: Toys 'R Us

Is it ethical for Little Tykes toy manufacturers to test their products and obtain market research through their employees' on-site day care? Would it be more appropriate if they (the employees and their children) received additional compensation?

Seiter refers to the fact that Quaker Oats had purchased the toy manufacturer Fischer-Price and General Mills had purchased the toy manufacturer Kenner. What are the implications of these take-overs regarding marketing and advertising aimed at children?

Seiter Article

When reading the article I noticed that 55% of dolls and 40% of all toys were made in China in 1990. I wonder what those numbers are today and what does "Made in China" mean to kids when they see it on the bottom of all of their toys. Do they realize those toys were most likely made by kids their age?

I found the section on deseasonalization very interesting. When I was young it was such a big deal whenever Christmas or my birthday came around because it meant new toys. Now it seems with advertising that those occasions don't mean so much because the ads are showing kids that they can get toys any time they want. I was shocked that toys were the number one market, but I guess it makes sense.

Seiter Article

The first page of the article states, “Mass media targeted at children have shortened the period of exclusivity parental influence over children,” meaning that as soon as the television switch is flipped to on, a parent is no longer the only source where a children receives their information. With all that is shown on television, how frightening is that? At what age does a child actually start comprehending what is going on when watching television, and when do they apply what they’ve learned in their actual life?

Target audiences for product consumption are becoming younger and younger, and it is ultimately the parents’ responsibility to decide whether to make the purchase for their children. How does it affect the child differently when they have a minimal amount of toys as opposed to children who have buckets full of dolls and games? I don’t remember having brand name toys when I was at preschool. I remember playing on an indoor playground and building things out of blocks with the guys or watching the girls play beauty parlor. I wonder how different it is now? Is every preschool stocked with Barbie dolls on hand and superhero figurines?

Seiter reading for 10/14/10

1. What do you think the future will be like for the toy market. Now that everything seems to be digitalized do you think the toy industry will adapt to that or will it fade into oblivion?

2. I couldnt believe what I was reading when I read about how Toys R US can be a place for parents to show off their babies. I then realized that it is true. Do you think it is also important for parents to "show off" by purchasing more toys for their children?

Seiter Article

- In this article Seiter references Mattel's Barbie Doll as the line extension success par excellence. This is unbelievably true as the Pink aisle is forever shouting pink, while young girls get their first Barbie and play in the Malibu Barbie Dream House. However, with the lack of actual commercial advertisement would it be safe to say that Barbie's success has been founded solely on the previous generations experiences and nostalgic mannerisms? If so, are there other toys that have succeeded through multiple generations?

- When did the corporate world realize that they could profit off of a merchandise daycare for both children and parents? I mean this article is implying that utilizing Toys R Us as a pivotal tool in teaching life lessons to a child and an area to releve stresses; is this the direction and marketing tools to sustain a businesses goals and targets?

Toys

This article made me think of how I hardly ever see advertising for toys anymore, and I'm not sure if that is just because I'm older now. I work at Mayfair and there isn't a toy store there, and I don't believe Brookfield Square has one either. I also thought about how I still watch channels that children watch like ABC Family, and I never see toy commercials. It seems that places like Target and Walmart are the only stores that still sell and advertise for toys.

I thought it was interesting to hear the author say that children do not like to venture out from the brands they know because I never realized this. I guess we never really change as adults because many of us like to stick to certain brands. This goes along with what we talked about in class the other day, why do we stick to certain brands? What is it about them? It was funny the author said "Parents cannot understand the difference between one version of My Little Pony and the next," because we do this same thing as adults. When it comes down to it, I can pretty much do the same things with the first iPod I had 5 years ago, my second, and the newest one I have now, but we feel as though we have to keep buying the newest versions still.

Shopping

In the article Fiske states that "neither products nor people have inner-cores of meaning or self-definition that exist before and independently of their appearance, behavior, use and social interaction."

What is this statement saying about the manner in which people develop a sense of identity for themselves and their products?

Fiske and shopping

- In reply to another classmate's post regarding how long trends last, I think it is up to the media and the businesses that drive them. The trends only stay relevant until we are told they are not anymore. While that time usually varies, I think it is as long as it takes for the next "thing" or replacement. Do you agree?

- Going off what I just stated, it leads me to the section in the article regarding the appeal of the new. Obviously we are motivated individuals and are always curious about what is next. It seems like over time, new things seem to reach us faster. Do you think we will ever hit that wall where we can introduce the "new" any faster or do you think there is always going to be room to introduce the new faster?

Shopping

The Fiske, et al. article states that shopping "is situated at the crucial interface between individual desire and social control." In what ways does the act of shopping perpetuate social control? Individual desire?

The article goes on to claim that shopping "gives precedence to individual desire." Does shopping in a deluxe shopping mall really give precedence to individual desire, or is such a highly commercial and strategic setting stronger evidence for social control?

Fiske et al Article

- When does a commodity go from being fantastic to plastic and vice verse? Why do we as a society let these products define who we are and articulate what type of individual we are/ have become?

- Why are consumers so reliant on bulk and one stop shopping? It appears these days that every major shopping chain is upgrading to accomodate the masses; but if this continues where does the excitment go regarding variety and choice?

Shopping reading for 10/12/10

1. I am one of those people who likes to go to the mall and not buy anything. I like to look at everything and decide what I would or would not buy. Do you think a person like me is still considered a consumer when I rarely end up going back and buying the product?

2. It seems like trends go in and out faster than ever today. It's a random thought but how long do you think an average "trend" lasts these days?

Fiske et al

While the article argues that women dress a certain way to convey a particular image to the men that gaze upon them, I would have to argue that women often dress a certain way to convey certain identity traits to other women that are seen as the competition. Why would a woman dress up for a man when he probably doesn't notice what she is wearing anyways?

The article emphasizes the importance of "newness" when a woman is shopping, but as of lately the trends have shifted and now items that look "vintage" or "worn in" are in style. What does this suggest about our shopping behaviors?

Giroux

Since advertising and consumer culture are invading school systems, how will children learn to make their own decisions instead of following in the example of others or just doing what they are told?

How can new social experiments like Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, which is designed to instill healthy eating habits in young kids, succeed when the hallways of the schools are plastered with McDonald's and Pepsi ads?

Giroux

Giroux talks about corporations becoming the makers of curriculum and omitting the wrongs and injustices that have been done by big business over the years. Textbook companies are already under pressure to to issue out the most non-controversial versions of history in order to maintain the widest distribution and printing. Is it possible to instill a school curriculum that teaches scrutiny in a system that is increasingly becoming for profit?

Or, will it ultimately be up to individual teachers?

What kind of consequences then do educators face in teaching these lessons?

Giroux Article

Turning kids into consumers of information and teachers to managers of the classroom will only contribute to a decline in individuality, willingness to learn and even opportunity following the completion of a child's education. The creativity of a teacher in how he/she works with his/her students is what stimulates a child to be receptive to the material. Privatizing school advocates take away the eagerness to learn in telling teachers what to teach and how to teach it. It is agreeable that there should be some form of school curriculum, but not one of which the limitations have substantial negative results. There are over 6 million teachers in the United States in elementary and secondary schools. The majority of these teachers are underpaid, but they continue in their career path because they are passionate about these kids. How many of these teachers will continue on in the same career path, underpaid, if this type of stringent curriculum takes away from their ability to do what they love: teach?

Educational theorist Jonathan Kozol had it right when he said that privatization lacks a focus on national equality. Children from all parts of the country, some with excessive amounts of resources and others with little to none, will be expected to reach the same level of performance. Why is such an obvious inequality being overlooked so easily? Of course no one wants to pay more in taxes, but even a fraction of an increase could be distributed amongst struggling schools to help bridge this gap and allow for every child to have the same chance at an equal education.

Giroux Article

A lesson plan involving how a McDonald's operates is described on pages 95 and 96. A seven week long course educating a group of 10 year olds on the principles of how to operate a McDonald’s chain seems hardly time worthy. I will give it the benefit of the doubt by saying that it would be educational to teach children about how a business works (maybe using McDonald’s as an example), but even then, it should simply be a general overview that would take much less than seven weeks. What happened to learning about historic events and proper English skills? To what point will these types of lessons and advertisements in our schools continue to build up, and when will somebody finally intervene?

Is getting a bunch of free items worth putting children’s education on the line? Is letting corporations bombard hallways of schools the only way to provide institutions with necessary appliances such as computers? If a school is only receiving a small amount of aid, would the advertisers important additions to the building outweigh the consequences of ads throughout the school- meaning would it be better to have ads and computers, or no ads and no computers?

Giroux

What specific points does Giroux use as evidence to support his claim about the negative effects when education is "delineated through corporate, rather than democratic ideals" ?

Giroux repeatedly mentions that the corporatizing of education does not consider equity and equality. What does this part of his argument mean? What effects will ignoring these factors have on schools of different socio-economic conditions?

Giroux mentions that another issue of privatization is "the assumption that its regulatory and competitive spirit will allow the most motivated and gifted students to succeed." What attitudes, predispositions, and other factors contribute to the fallacy of such an assumption?

Giroux Article

Children should be granted the right to learn without all of the corporate reminders being placed in front of them at school. Students have enough on their minds without having to worry about materialistic things. But in todays society is advertising a necessity for these kids to even be able to go to school? With the economy and how schools barely have enough money for the essentials, are these advertisements that are being placed in the "hallways, bathrooms, classrooms, vending machines, lunch menus, and busses" paying for these kids to be there? And if so, how fair is that? Because of how the economy, the one thing that everyone needs "education" is being distracted by the one thing that is paying for these kids to receive education...advertising.

Even in textbooks these students are finding advertisements for "Gatorade, Nike, and Sony," but the book never hits on the low dirty conditions of these sweatshops that make these products. And just when you think you are safe in the rest room....they are exposed to advertisements even while sitting on the toilet, or standing at the urnal. It is not fair that the students, and even most teachers have no say in these marketing ploys. "The schools are switching priorities from education to marketing products." Where is the line drawn? In 20 years, what will children in schools be exposed to? What are the guidelines if any for companies to be able to advertise to students while at school?

Giroux Article

- Having attended Milwaukee Public Schools all my life I remember when the corporate world latched onto the schools bringing in brand name vending machines, athletic gear, and contributions to the theater program at my H.S. I also remember during my H.S. career that the classroom curriculum was the last area that received donations. I will venture off and say that I believe that privatization for public education is necessary in the right areas, however those areas in the classroom are the last to be touched because everyone's extra curricular activities outshine the classroom achievements. So, if public schools are ever going to "compete" with private schools than those looking at the problem need to shift their thought process. In a new documentary, "Waiting for Superman" the Washington DC public school system is being criticized for everything this article talks about, but blames the teachers union for their lack of leadership and responsibility. If children don't have the haven of knowledge and security within their schools, than why aren't we as a society taking more of an abrupt stance and standing up for our futures education?
Here's a trailer link for anyone interested in the documentary:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg

- Giroux states on page 89 that students represent an individual consumer while teachers are represented as the ultimate salespeople. When exactly did one's education reach the level of a commodity that can be traded or lost to the corporate picture? If we continue to displace students and bring forth individual consumers what happens to the individual wants and goals of that student? How far will their corporate education take them? Why aren't we as a society living up to the expectations of the future to change or re-write thier paths?

Giroux reading for 10/5/10

1. I remember when I transferred to a public high school at the start of my junior year, I noticed all of the advertisements in the hallways. There were Pepsi machines, 'Got Milk' posters, and Gatorade logos everywhere. How far do you think commercialization in schools will go? Do you think it's conceivable that there could be monitors in hallways with actual commercials on them? I mean society is to the point where you're forced to watch a commercial before you can view a video on Youtube.

2. Do you think public education has been "dumbed down"? I attended a private high school for three and a half years and a public school for just a semester and I couldnt believe how much of a difference there was in the curriculum and academic standards.